Student Goes Off At Teacher About Education

[devilof76]

Why were they economic failures compared to the North? Slavery is unsustainable when it competes with free markets, and it has a grossly limited capacity to produce when left on its own. Compare an army of slaves to a single cotton gin and get back to me.

And to answer your question, it's because they were dumb. They were too interested in maintaining their 'culture' and 'tradition' to know well enough to dump their barbaric ideology and actually progress into the future. But that's not as important as why they were not a significant factor in this country's unprecedented economic advancement. The general consensus that land and labor is all it takes is derived from materialism, and if that were a correct point of view, the Soviet Union would have buried us.

 

[siquisiri]

Why were they economic failures compared to the North? Slavery is unsustainable when it competes with free markets, and it has a grossly limited capacity to produce when left on its own. Compare an army of slaves to a single cotton gin and get back to me.

And to answer your question, it's because they were dumb. They were too interested in maintaining their 'culture' and 'tradition' to know well enough to dump their barbaric ideology and actually move into the future.

Because they were dumb?? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Blackthornone]

Why were they economic failures compared to the North? Slavery is unsustainable when it competes with free markets, and it has a grossly limited capacity to produce when left on its own. Compare an army of slaves to a single cotton gin and get back to me.

And to answer your question, it's because they were dumb. They were too interested in maintaining their 'culture' and 'tradition' to know well enough to dump their barbaric ideology and actually progress into the future. But that's not as important as why they were not an important factor in this country's unprecedented economic advancement.

Wow. You act like the North NEVER had slaves. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had them. It's easy for people to become principled, AFTER they make their money.

 

[devilof76]

Try thinking with your brain instead of your sense of envy, Reverend.

Because they were dumb?? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Why do you hold to asinine economic theories like materialism? Because you're smart?

This conversation is a joke. I'm going to bed.

 

[The Josh]

I think the question is the problem. 9 times out of 10, you aren't going to get the same results from kids from families who aren't culturally education-oriented as you are from kids who come from the opposite background.

All kids can't take the same test and do the same. Theory to the contrary is poorly conceived.

I don't think the question is the problem. The stadardized tests are designed with little wiggle room for variances in the education of the child. Its a test that's a cookie cutter test expecting everyone to be the same. That's why I think we need to go back to the drawing board with these type of tests.

So pay their parents to teach them.

Its not about paying the parents. The failure with parents is them not being parents and also reaffirming to their children how important education is. If parents held up their end of the deal it would help us as teachers make sure their child gets the education they deserve, because they would have the openmind needed to be successful. The problem with the education system is too often we don't do a good enough job opening the door that the parents didn't. Then we just pass them along until we have large groups of uneducated/lazy adults creating more people like themselves.

 

[siquisiri]

Try thinking with your brain instead of your sense of envy, Reverend.



Why do you hold to asinine economic theories like materialism? Because you're smart?

This conversation is a joke. I'm going to bed.

wait , wait, im still not done...
Lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[ZaCHw117]

Why were they economic failures compared to the North? Slavery is unsustainable when it competes with free markets, and it has a grossly limited capacity to produce when left on its own. Compare an army of slaves to a single cotton gin and get back to me.

And to answer your question, it's because they were dumb. They were too interested in maintaining their 'culture' and 'tradition' to know well enough to dump their barbaric ideology and actually progress into the future. But that's not as important as why they were not a significant factor in this country's unprecedented economic advancement. The general consensus that land and labor is all it takes is derived from materialism, and if that were a correct point of view, the Soviet Union would have buried us.

 

[The Ween]

"Don't try and take credibility for teaching me jack."

Looks and sounds like a little punk to me.

I've seen this now on several places and it kills me how people can judge a whole situation by watching a couple of minutes out of context.

That teacher is getting slammed all over the place. Who knows what happened?

 

[The Ween]

I quit reading this thread when I see so many who have never set foot in a classroom as a adult thinking they know everything there is about teachers and teaching.

 

[Darkmatter]

I've seen this now on several places and it kills me how people can judge a whole situation by watching a couple of minutes out of context.

That teacher is getting slammed all over the place. Who knows what happened?

in the teacher's judgement, she sent the kid to the admin's office. what you saw was a pointless statement made by a confrontational kid that sounded as if his accent turned into a TV evangelist. doesn't really matter why the kid was ejected. the story is his rant. he may have gotten a better grade in debate but he continued after his high note and repeated the same things said earlier making him look like a blithering idiot. C for effort. now if he put that much effort into his schoolwork.....

 

[BadMoon]

I quit reading this thread when I see so many who have never set foot in a classroom as a adult thinking they know everything there is about teachers and teaching.

All I know about teaching is you couldn't pay me to do it. Bless my wife for having the patience to deal with those little ****ers.

 

[ZaCHw117]

That kid's mom is a teacher.

 

[thenammagazine]

Why do I even both trying to seriously debate you? It always comes to this sort of thing.

Well, I guess this is better than the retarded horse video, "FAIL" gif, or picture of a naked male toy body you used to always employ to try and end our discussions

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks that standards should be lowered for poor people because they're poor. That's exactly what's dropped the US into 17th place, and falling. "Wow, you're poor? You must be incapable of learning at the same level as rich people. Well, we'll lower the standard for you, so you can get better grades. How's that?" "Oh, you failed all your courses? Well, we can't hold you back a year, it would do too much social damage denying you the ability to stay in class with your friends. Congrats, we'll socially pass you!" Well, not only should it be insulting to both the poor and rich, but it accomplishes nothing, in the end, save awarding ignorance for the sake of ignorance.

 

[karamazov80]

I don't think the question is the problem. The stadardized tests are designed with little wiggle room for variances in the education of the child. Its a test that's a cookie cutter test expecting everyone to be the same. That's why I think we need to go back to the drawing board with these type of tests.

But standardized educational tests (including the ones in elementary school, for college admissions, and for post-graduate education) are supposed to test aptitude for success in school and beyond. They do that fairly effectively, and are constantly being tweaked and improved on by professionals who are trained to understand the assessment and predictive properties of these things.

What else do you think they should test? They don't examine generalized intelligence. But why should they? You can be brilliant and a failure at school if you are an underachiever, or otherwise can't pick up things in an educational environment. Or, you could be less bright than most and succeed better than most, if you have the drive. But those things shouldn't be captured on this kind of test. At the grade school level, they're supposed to signal to the schools whether or not a kid can hang and learn the material at some very basic level. If a child can't pass, then they most likely aren't going to be learning the material moving forward. And if that's the case, then you have a problem that goes well beyond problems with the test.

 

[pixletwin]

That kid's mom is a teacher.

I don't understand how that is relevant.

 

[karamazov80]

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks that standards should be lowered for poor people because they're poor. That's exactly what's dropped the US into 17th place, and falling. "Wow, you're poor? You must be incapable of learning at the same level as rich people. Well, we'll lower the standard for you, so you can get better grades. How's that?" Well, not only should it be insulting to both the poor and rich, but it accomplishes nothing, in the end, save awarding ignorance for the sake of ignorance.

So once more, you're putting words in my mouth that I've never said, nor thought. Thanks for that. Shove me into that peg you're imagining I live in.

In fact, I'm making quite the opposite argument re: standardized tests. They are effective. Students who can't succeed, need to learn how to succeed. Tests shouldn't be changed to accommodate those who don't learn what they need to. But as with 90% of the other stuff I've posted, that will fall on deaf ears in your case.

 

[ZaCHw117]

I don't understand how that is relevant.

People are up in arms over how he acted. If his mom is a teacher, he obviously knows what makes a teacher good and bad.

Just by the teacher's tone I can tell what kind of teacher she is. She doesn't care, she's in it for the pay. Not for the love of teaching and inspiring her students.

If you're a good teacher you'll care about your student's opinions. The way she played it wasn't cool. Especially if she's coming in there to ***** about how "this is her paycheck".

 

[The Josh]

But standardized educational tests (including the ones in elementary school, for college admissions, and for post-graduate education) are supposed to test aptitude for success in school and beyond. They do that fairly effectively, and are constantly being tweaked and improved on by professionals who are trained to understand the assessment and predictive properties of these things.

They are supposed to test that but the way they're written are not all that great. So while they might be trying to measure these things the way they're put together is fairly crappy. Part of that I think is because each state can have its own standard as to what they should know but these tests are built for one style. So at least from someone who is in the mix I can tell you these tests kind of suck and the people putting them together aren't that great at their jobs.

What else do you think they should test? They don't examine generalized intelligence. But why should they? You can be brilliant and a failure at school if you are an underachiever, or otherwise can't pick up things in an educational environment. Or, you could be less bright than most and succeed better than most, if you have the drive. But those things shouldn't be captured on this kind of test. At the grade school level, they're supposed to signal to the schools whether or not a kid can hang and learn the material at some very basic level. If a child can't pass, then they most likely aren't going to be learning the material moving forward. And if that's the case, then you have a problem that goes well beyond problems with the test.

Its not about what they're testing. You should tests these kids in their core subjects to make sure they're learning but as I said above each state has its own standards. We need to have national standards and then build the test towards that. At that point you can work on starting at home pushing why school is important and making sure the child has that in them to learn when they're at school.

I will say I don't think these tests are written terribly well either. You need these kinds of tests but they're just not well made. Another issue you have is teachers and schools have to teach towards the test because it factors in so much. Its become less about teaching the material but teaching to the test iteself.

 

[pixletwin]

People are up in arms over how he acted. If his mom is a teacher, he obviously knows what makes a teacher good and bad.

That's obvious is it? Just by virtue of what his mom does for a living? Why, is that something that is absorbed by osmosis?

Just by the teacher's tone I can tell what kind of teacher she is. She doesn't care, she's in it for the pay. Not for the love of teaching and inspiring her students.

That's a pretty heavy judgement call based on some pretty feather-light evidence.

If you're a good teacher you'll care about your student's opinions. The way she played it wasn't cool. Especially if she's coming in there to ***** about how "this is her paycheck".

Her tone, to me (and others it would seem) sounded like a parent who's child is throwing a tantrum. She let him have his say. Kept calm. Stated her position. Let him make an *** of himself.

 

[thenammagazine]

I don't understand how that is relevant.

Dude looks like a pothead, therefore, Zach defends him. Case closed.

So once more, you're putting words in my mouth that I've never said, nor thought. Thanks for that. Shove me into that peg you're imagining I live in.

In fact, I'm making quite the opposite argument re: standardized tests. They are effective. Students who can't succeed, need to learn how to succeed. Tests shouldn't be changed to accommodate those who don't learn what they need to. But as with 90% of the other stuff I've posted, that will fall on deaf ears in your case.

Your argument: "low social class = automatic educational disadvantage." That's a wholly ignorant train of thought. That's the thought process that's gotten us where we are. Did you even read the link in my last post?